The
defensive and guarded Arab reaction to the self-pronounced and reported
pro-Israel and pro-America statements of Nicolas Paul Stephane Sarkozy
de Nagy-Bocsa, who was sworn in as the new President of France on May
16, as well as his Jewish connection and that of his foreign policy
team, have alerted Arab capitals and public opinion to a possibly
imminent break with his country’s more than a five-decade old balanced
approach to Arab conflicts and the Arab – Israeli conflict in
particular.

Acting
on a campaign pledge to a clean break with France's political past,
Sarkozy’s declared aim to change France could yet prove easier said
than done, but nonetheless Sarkozy has grouped together a foreign
policy team that could vindicate Arab fears; however Sarkozy’s
pragmatism could not but take French huge interests in the Arab world
into consideration, which might still prove his Arab critics wrong.

Next
month marks the fortieth anniversary of the June 5, 1967 Arab – Israeli
war, which changed the face of the Middle East. France’s Middle East
policy made a sharp reversal soon thereafter. Franco-Israeli relations
have seen their “Golden Age” in the 1950s, when France was Israel's
main ally, weapons supplier and nuclear capability provider. The low
point came after the 1967 war, during the presidency of Charles de
Gaulle, when France imposed an almost complete arms embargo, left
Israel to its strategic alliance with the United States and embarked
since then on her balanced approach to the Arab – Israeli conflict.
French – Arab relations were reinforced further after the Arab –
Israeli war and the oil crisis of 1973.

Just
three days after the shooting stopped, late President de Gaulle
instructed his foreign minister to denounce Israel before the French
National Assembly and the United Nations General Assembly. A month
later, he said that, “we told the Israelis not to start a conflict.
Now, France does not recognize her conquests.” In the following
November he elaborated further: “Israel, having attacked, seized, in
six days of combat, objectives that she wanted to attain. Now she is
organizing, on the territories she has taken, an occupation that cannot
but involve oppression, repression, expropriation, and there has
appeared against her a resistance that she, in turn, describes as
terrorism.”

Sarkozy
is promising a 180 degree turnabout on de Gaulle’s legacy. His
pro-Israeli views have prompted a flurry of contacts between Arab
capitals and Paris, with Arabs seeking a reassurance of continuity.
President Mubarak of Egypt was so worried about a French shift that he
sought a meeting to ask Sarkozy about his “Israeli bias” during his
recent visit to Paris to bid farewell to his predecessor Jacque Chirac.
Arab defensive reaction to his presidency was alerted by several
factors.

Jewish Connection

The
Arab defensive reaction to his presidency was alerted by several
factors, but his Jewish connection in particular was interpreted as the
reason behind his pro-Israel statements. Within this context, Sarkozy’s
emerging team on foreign policy is being watched with concern by Arab
capitals. .

Sarkozy’s
election was hailed by Israel and Jewish organizations worldwide,
including Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the umbrella group of
French Jewish communal organizations (CRIF), AIPAC in the United
States, the Rabbinical Center of Europe, to name a few. They should,
and they did, feel relieved with the new Sarkozy-led pro-Israel French
administration with a strong Jewish and US connections. Sarko, as his
supporters call him, has openly and repeatedly called himself a friend
of Israel in good times and in bad, the Israeli French edition of the
Jerusalem Post reported on May 3, quoting him as saying that “makes me
an ‘Atlantist,’ pro-Israeli and pro-American.” They hope that Sarkozy
will adopt a policy more in coordination with the US and in line with
that of Britain and Germany than with what they see as a traditional
“politique arabe de la France” of recent decades. .

In
2002, the then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged French Jews to
immigrate en masse to Israel after a spate of anti-Jews attacks.
Sarkozy, as interior minister, responded: “France is not a racist
country. France is not an anti-Semitic country.” Israelis and Jews also
could still remember the reference a few years ago by French ambassador
to England, Daniel Bernard, to Israel as a “shitty little country.”
Now, Sarkozy is undoubtedly the most Israel-friendly president since the founding of the
Fifth
Republic in 1958,The
Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, reported on May 11. He is an
admirer of the Jewish state and has warm ties with the French Jewish
community. His maternal grandfather, Aron Mallah, nicknamed Benkio, was
a Greek Jew from Salonika who migrated to France before the Second
World War and converted to Catholicism but nevertheless had to hide
during World War II because of his Jewish roots. .

In
total, 57 of Sarkozy’s family members were murdered by the Nazis. His
wife Cecilia is also of Jewish ancestry. He is a 2003 laureate of the
Simon Wiesenthal Centre Humanitarian Award. However
neither his Jewish family background nor his fervent opposition to
anti-Semitism would alienate Arabs, but the family’s active role in the
Zionist movement certainly would alert them to a potential effect on
his politics as much as would his personal Israeli friends like former
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Beniko’s uncle Moshe was a devoted
Zionist who, in 1898 published and edited El Avenir, the leading paper
of the Zionist movement in
Greece
at the time. His cousin, Asher, in 1912 helped guarantee the
establishment of the Jewish Technion in Haifa, Palestine and in 1919 he
was elected as the first President of the Zionist Federation of Greece
and he headed the Zionist Council for several years; in the 1930s Asher
helped Jewish immigration to and colonization of Palestine, to which he
himself immigrated in 1934. After the establishment of the State of
Israel in 1948 another of Beniko’s cousins, Peppo Mallah, became the
country’s first diplomatic envoy to Greece. Sarkozy says he admired his
grandfather, who bequeathed to Nicolas his political convictions. His
pro –US and pro Israel sympathies and his Jewish connection are
reinforced by similar sympathies of his governing team. .

His close
confident and Prime Minister, François Fillon’s Anglo-Saxon connection
is customized by his British-born wife, the first of a French head of
government. His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who made several
visits to Israel and received an honorary degree from Ben-Gurion
University in Beersheba at the height of the second Palestinian
Intifada (uprising) was born to a Jewish father and a Protestant
mother; in a January 2004 interview, Kouchner lamented that the French
had become “America-haters.” Kouchner is also close to UMP MP and
France’s ambassador in Washington, Pierre Lellouche, who is Sarkozy’s
advisor on international issues. Levitte will head a diplomatic team in
the presidential administration modelled on the US National Security
Council; he is another Jewish figure in Sarkozy’s foreign policy team.
The New culture minister, Christine Albanel, 51, is a former member of
the board of the Foundation for the Memory of the Holocaust.

In an interview Sarkozy gave in 2004, The Jewish Journal online on May 11 quoted him as saying: “Should
I remind you the visceral attachment of every Jew to Israel, as a
second mother homeland? There is nothing outrageous about it. Every Jew
carries within him a fear passed down through generations, and he knows
that if one day he will not feel safe in his country, there will always
be a place that would welcome him. And this is Israel.”
How
could Arabs interpret this other than being a direct encouragement of a
dual loyalty and an indirect call for immigration to Israel in
contradiction with his insistence on loyalty by the mostly Arab and
Muslim French immigrant citizens to “French identity,” for which he
created the new ministry of immigration and national identity? Sarkozy
visited Israel several times, but never the Israeli-occupied
Palestinian territories. He has repeatedly said that he would not
legitimize Hamas or Hizbullah by entering into dialogue with them,
a statement that would politically translate into exacerbation of the
Palestinian and Lebanese national divides by not recognizing the
democratically elected Hamas-led national unity government, thus
perpetuating the siege on the Palestinians, and by blocking.

Hizbullah’s partnership in Lebanon’s decision-making.

Coordination with US

He
stunned a group of Arab ambassadors by telling them “his foreign policy
priority as president would be to forge a closer relationship with
Israel,” The Washington Times on May 12 cited a report by The New York
Times as saying. His
pledged “friendship” with the US is viewed by Arabs as heralding a new
unbalanced approach that will give impetus to Washington’s strategic
plans for the Middle East and would perpetuate the regional Arab –
Israeli, Iraqi, Darfur and Lebanon - Syria conflicts in particular. His
foreign minister agrees: “On … the Middle East, on the need for an
alliance with America, on the role of France in Europe — we’re very
close,” Kouchner said on record.

Sarkozy’s
pro-American views have added to Arab concerns that he would break with
France’s traditionally independent policy in their region, dashing as
wishful thinking Arab hopes of an independent European approach that
might develop a counterbalance in resolving Arab conflicts to the US
Israeli-biased approach. Sarkozy’s warm relationship with German
Chancellor Angela Merkel and the expected accession of British
Chancellor Gordon Brown to the premiership signal the rise of a
relatively pro-American trio of European leaders.

In
his first speech after his election, Sarkozy warned Iran, Syria, and
Libya that they could no longer play Europe off against America. Like
his predecessor Chirac, Sarkozy is determined to disengage Syria from
Lebanon in coordination with the US, but it will not be as “personal”
as it was with Chirac, but unlike him he openly called Hizbullah a
terrorist organization, whichwould clear the way for the main
Lebanese anti-Israel resistance group to be included in the EU list of
terrorist organizations, thus bringing France closer to the US
classification of Hizbullah. His foreign minister’s visit of support to
Beirut last week at the height of fighting between the Lebanese army
and a suspiciously al-Qaeda-linked Fatah al-Islam group in a northern
one square kilometre Palestinian refugee camp was seen by some as
playing into the hands of a US strategy to exacerbate Lebanon’s
internal political crisis into a violent one.

US
– French coordination in Lebanon and vis-à-vis Syria was unveiled
following the Israeli war on Lebanon last summer, but was recently
confirmed further at the UN Security Council by the joint
US-British-French draft resolution to create an international tribunal
for Lebanon under chapter 7 of the United Nation Charter.

Sarkozy
is expected to be more aggressive as he is also gearing towards more
coordination with Washington in the Sudanese region of Darfur; he has
called for “urgent” action there, warning that Khartoum would be made
to face international justice for its actions. Kouchner, his maverick
top diplomat, considers the Sudan’s war-torn region his top priority.
On May 9, the US State Department said it wants the new elected French
president to play an important role in Darfur peacekeeping mission,
particularly in the no-fly zone.

On
Iraq, Sarkozy’s choice of Kouchner, the co-founder of the Nobel Prize
winner “Doctors Without Borders,” as his foreign minister could send a
message to Arabs that priority will go to “humanitarianism” in foreign
policy, contrary to the long-held Gaullist French policy, which
evaluates crises through the lens of France’s national interests.
Kouchner is famous for developing the theory of “humanitarian
intervention” to justify international military
adventures according to which he believes that the US-led invasion was
justified to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Sarkozy's declared hopes to forge closer ties with the NATO could mean a greater role for
France
in training the new Iraqi police and army based on quotas already set
by NATO. It could also mean greater involvement in the Arab section of
the alliance’s southern flank in Lebanon, where French peacekeepers
already play a leading role.

On
the humanitarian crises in the occupied Palestinian territories and
Iraq, Sarkozy’s top diplomat is silently passive, more in line with the
US deafening silence, revealing a politically selective approach in his
humanitarian concerns that took him to Africa, Kosovo, Chechnya,
Afghanistan, Darfur and even led him to endorse a boycott of the
Olympic Games in Peking in order to force China to break its trade
relations with Sudan on Darfur.

Sarkozy’s
attitude and planned policies for alien immigrants have also a lot in
common with those of US President George W. Bush, and will undoubtedly
be watched as a test case to judge his cultural and political approach
to Arabs and Muslims in general. His view of “radical Islamists” could
place him in line with US-led world war on “Islamic terrorism.” Leading
British writer on the Middle East, Patrick Seale, on April 27 quoted
him as saying: “Algeria was very brave to interrupt the democratic
process. If the army had not acted, one could have had a Taliban regime
in Algeria.”

US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is looking forward to visiting
France and having cooperation with her new French counterpart, the
State Department said last week. “There's a lot on the table for the
U.S. and France in terms of being able to address issues of mutual
concern around the globe, whether that's Iran or the Middle East or
dealing with poverty alleviation in Africa or climate change,” State
Department spokesman Sean McComack told a news briefing.

Counter Arguments

However
several factors could yet reign in a complete clean break with Paris’
traditional balanced approach to Middle East issues, a “hope” shared by
all Arab governments and even by such controversial grassroots
movements like Hizbullah of Lebanon and the ruling Hamas of the
Palestinian Authority government.

Arabs are already aware that Sarkozy’s father
was Hungarian and grandfather Jewish, but he himself
grew up Catholic and speaks no Hungarian. His heritage “doesn't mean
he's going to take Jewish positions,” said Shimon Samuels of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center in Paris. Moreover Arab leaders are already doing
normal business with both Israeli and non-Israeli Jewish leaders.

Sarkozy's
programs will, first, depend on the legislative elections of the
National Assembly to be held in two ballots on June 10 and 17. Second
he will spend the lion's share of his time dealing with domestic issues
then he will be preoccupied with France’s role in Europe and NATO.
Third he has to deal with an array of a powerful coalition of vested
interests, from the communist-dominated trade unions to the elites who
dominate the civil service, not least the French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Quai d'Orsay. He, fourth, is on record as saying recently
that “he wants excellent links with the Arab states” and there is no
reason not to believe him.

Fifth, Sarkozy’s pro-Americanism is not a carte blanche as he “is impressed far more by what the United States does at home than by its global aims and presence,”
according to Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post. His opposition to Turkey’s membership in the EU is evidence that both countries’ international agendas are not identical. Sixth, if the election of Fran็ois
Mitterrand as president in 1981 and 1988 is to serve as a guiding
precedent it reminds observers that it caused similar worries in the
Arab world, but Mitterrand was also the first Western leader to declare
support for Palestinian self-determination and a right to have their
own state. Seventh, Sarkozy could be following the leadership of the
US, but isn’t this is the same leadership with the strongest Jewish
connection that most Arab leaders are already in business with, which
promises more of the same, but no drastic change.

*Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Ramallah, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

" I also noticed that reference in the French documents to Chechen rebels -- and what it immediately reminded me of was not Feith's and Perle's adventures, but Peter Dale Scott's "The Global Drug Meta-Group."

I've never felt I've fully understood Scott's article, bit as a result I get something new out of it every time I look at it. In this case, what jumped out at me was these paragraphs:

(The goal of splitting up Russia attributed here to Surikov is that which, in an earlier text co-authored by Surikov, is attributed by Russian "radicals" to the United States:

The radicals believe that the US actively utilizes Turkish and Muslim elements....From Azerbaijan, radicals foresee a strategic penetration which would irrevocably split the Federation. US influence would be distributed to the former Soviet Central Asian Republics, to Chechnya and the other North Caucasus Muslim autonomous republics of T[at]arstan and Bashkortostan. As a result Russian territorial integrity would be irreparably compromised.) . . .

In my conclusion I shall return to the possibility that U.S. government might share common goals with Hizb ut-Tahrir and the meta-group in Russia, even while combating the Islamist terrorism of al-Qaeda in the Middle East and the West.

Most major media outlets have spelled out with a profusion of details the "exact" events that led to the death of what some claim to have been hundreds of people in the eastern Uzbekistan town of Andijan on May 13. Led by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the world media condemned much-maligned Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov for yet another bloody and ruthless suppression of "public dissent". Yet, all the details so far provided do not explain who the real players were or their end objectives.

It is certain, however, that the puzzle cannot be solved unless the London factor is understood. The answers lie in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Liverpool. The old British colonial establishment, with former intelligence officer Bernard Lewis as its mentor, appears to have set in motion a series of events that will bring endless bloodshed to Central Asia. London's objective would appear to be to keep both China and Russia under an open-ended threat. At this point, there is no one who can better serve this "Lewis Doctrine" than Muslims nurtured in Britain - the Hizbut-Tehrir (HT). . . .

Apart from various Islamic preachers, two major Islamic groups function in the Ferghana Valley, whose common objective is to change the regimes in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. These are the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the HT. While the IMU openly thrives on violence, the HT is strongly promoted by the United Kingdom, where it is headquartered, as peaceful. But records indicate that that the IMU and the HT work hand-in-hand. Most of the IMU recruits are from the HT, according to Rohan Gunaratna, an expert on world terrorist outfits. Gunaratna claims that Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the US, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian of Chechen origin who has remained active in the Iraqi insurgency against the US occupying forces, were both once members of the HT. . . .

The West's policy - in other words, the policy of the Anglo-Americans, as the European Union does not have a policy worth citing - toward the Middle East has long been formulated by Bernard Lewis. The British-born Lewis started his career as an intelligence officer and has remained in bed with British intelligence ever since. Avowedly anti-Russia and pro-Israel, Lewis reaped a rich harvest among US academia and policymakers. He brought president Jimmy Carter's virulently anti-Russian National Security Council chief, Zbigniew Brzezinski, into his fold in the 1980s, and made the US neo-conservatives, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, dance to his tune on the Middle East in 2001. In between, he penned dozens of books and was taken seriously by people as a historian. But, in fact, Lewis is what he always was: a British intelligence officer. . . .

The recent developments in Uzbekistan have all the hallmarks of the same process. This time the objective is to weaken China, Russia, and possibly India, using the HT to unleash the dogs of war in Central Asia. It is not difficult for those on the ground to see what is happening. The leader of the Islamic Party of Tajikistan, Deputy Prime Minister Hoji Akbar Turajonzoda, has identified HT as a Western-sponsored bogeyman for "remaking Central Asia". . . .

It is not a lack of understanding on the part of American neo-conservatives associated with the Bush administration, but their keenness to use the "Lewis Doctrine" to achieve what they believe is justified that promises untold danger. How important a brains-trust is Lewis to the neo-conservatives? Just read the words of Richard Perle, a leading neo-conservative who remains a close adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "Bernard Lewis has been the single-most important intellectual influence countering the conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam and the West."

So -- we end by coming back round again to Richard Perle, but hopefully in a larger context.

It ain't really about the Middle East, boys and girls -- it's about world domination, by any means necessary. The only question is one of identifying the moves as they happen, instead of many years later."".

BBC comment(atleast her washingtons correspondent's comments) on scooter LibBy's gulity verdit on 6th march,2007--"it does not matter to white house as long as iraq war turns out to be all right"!! for BBc illegal occupation of iraq and killing of million civilians does not matter -it will be al r ight for american occupation. This is human rights and democracy ala BBc and british propaganda. see and watch todays bbc and realize how much bbc and other british propaganda machinary is responsible for bush war crimes. He also assuredly told that this "white house is quite safe"as wished for by the british ofocurse. during gore-bush florida tussle bbc was advocating gore to leave bush alone as britian was waiting for american missile defence to come her shore soon and so no delay in small matter of who should be presidentof usa be allowed.d-bit belicve it? look at all british propaganda between 1st novembr till 20th novembr of 2000. it is high time that engish spies in american establishment be eliminated..

it is high time that these english spies in usa are taken care of .

======================================================= == these protestant baptists((and so callled religious fundamentalists and evnagalicals bastards)) are the agents of england inside america and have always been. thse baptists are the ones who created civil war for the benefit of british to reconquer america and during attack of britian in 1812 these baptists were acting as enemy agents inside amaerica. these baptisat are called patrioit--now what a shame? the southern flag is sympbol of american patriotism when it was really an instrument of treachery to the american independence.

" I am afraid the meddling small minded, fearful white boy is indicative of a large group of the amerikan types who still support a corrupt regieme of neo-con syncopants. He and those like him live in suspicion and fear of anyone different from themselves. He was once a settler who cut down and burned the forest of New England because he was afraid of the wildlife. He was once a trader who passed out smallpox blankets to the Indians. Then later a buffalo hunter who decimated entire herds and left them to rot on the plains. His grandfather herded Japanese into camps, his father was at MyLai. His brothers are at Abu Graib and Gitmo. Where will he be tommorrow?"

" but all non-WASP got (and still get) their time as scapegoat-du-jour: Native, Black, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Jew, Japanese, Catholic, Latino, and now Middle-Eastern, just to name a few. Along with the scapegoating goes the profiling, which is little more than prejudice and stereotypes made legal."

The recent director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights, Michael Ignatieff, proposed in the New York Times in May 2004 that we should give U.S. presidents the authority to preventively detain U.S. citizens and to engage in “coercive interrogations” should the United States experience another terrorist attack like 9/11. Ignatieff argued that “defeating terror requires violence” and “might also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.” “Sticking too firmly to the rule of law simply allows terrorists too much leeway to exploit our freedoms,” he said.[1]

In addition to Harvard’s top human rights academic arguing on behalf of “torture lite,” Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz supports “torture warrants” so that U.S. presidents can torture detainees in so-called “ticking bomb” cases.

The foreign policy sections of Putin's Message were relatively brief, but pointed. They continued what he began Feb. 10 in his speech to the Munich "Wehrkunde" Conference on Security. Putin zeroed in on the types of programs that go by the name of Project Democracy (since the founding of the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, in the 1980s):

"There are those who, making clever use of pseudodemocratic phraseology, would like to bring back the recent past: some, in order to be able to loot our national wealth with impunity, as in the past, to rob the people and the state; others, to strip our country of its economic and political independence. In addition, there is a growing influx of foreign money, used for direct interference in our internal affairs. If we look to more distant times in the past, we see that during the hey-day of colonialism, there was talk about an alleged civilizing role of the colonizing states. Today, 'democraticizing' slogans are used. But the goal is the same: to achieve unilateral advantage for one's own benefit and interests."

LaRouche: Yes. President Putin is correct. You must look at the change from Roosevelt to Truman. Truman and Churchill were the enemy of the United States. What you had is a process in which the U.S. system, which was the dominant system in the world at that time, financial and so forth, went through a succession of changes, in the world system.

Now immediately, the policy of building a postwar world, in cooperation with the Soviet Union, and Roosevelt, collapsed at that point. Now you had then, something similar to now. You had an Anglo-American turn for conflict with the Soviet Union. Here's where the thing becomes tricky for the case of modern Russia.

The control of this was from the British Empire. What happened was that the enemies of Roosevelt, in alliance with Churchill's crowd in England, changed their policy, and the faction within the United States, the financier faction in the United States, which had supported Hitler earlier, took predominant control of U.S. policy. So, what happened then: We went through a series of changes in the world monetary system, beginning with the assassination of President Kennedy.

============================================== 31st jan.2007.

it is very important to realize and understand the trickery of the english race in manipulating USA to wage wars on behalf of britain which gains most from iraq war and any war that usa imposes on the third world and even on europe.

here are some of the writings done years ago to give a global picture of what is REALLY happening in the world and by WHOSE agency. please read thse if u get some time